Hi, what do you think about the possibility of adding an [edit description] button (or similar) to topic cat, and maybe also to poscatboiler when/if you get around to converting poscatboiler/theList like you mentioned in the GP a while ago? --Yair rand (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think a button like you described is a good idea, which I'll remember to make appear in categories handled by poscatboiler and topic cat.

As an initial plan, perhaps simply [edit] (one word, in superscript text) fits poscatboiler better, because I intend to make one template per POS. For instance, one template for nouns that handles Category:English nouns, Category:Portuguese nouns, Category:Japanese nouns, etc.

On the other hand, the right buttons for topic cat would be [edit description][edit parents], because there are two templates per subject. In my opinion, both links are necessary, but the final text is too undesirably long, so it may require further pondering. --Daniel. 07:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The description for Category:Cities says "At this time the category includes cities, towns and villages of all sizes. It is anticipated that it will be divided at some later time". So I figure maybe it's time. I think you could probably make a boiler template that would be used in categories like Category:Cities in Brazil, Category:Cities in Sudan and stuff like that. Come back soon, man. Sometimes I want to punch you, but I know you do a lot :D — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 20:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I usually just say "A (large/small city/town/whatever) in the X region of the Y country". In Bengali cities, I've also been including categories of the specific areas. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 23:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, my second definition line fits your description by providing the "(large/small city/town/whatever)" part and listing some regions. I've created Osasco as a testcase. It notably displays overcategorization, which may or may not be a good thing, given that some standardized categories should exist and I ignored wider distinctions such as "Greater São Paulo, São Paulo, Southeastern Brazil, Brazil, South America, Earth[...]"

And I don't know if approximately one month is "soon" enough, but I'm happy to come back here. Thanks for the praise and go punch something else when you need to. --Daniel. 06:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually had templates for categories like {{topic cat}} and {{poscatboiler}} in mind, but actually {{place}} is really excellent, too :D I would take out the Category:Greater São Paulo, Category:São Paulo, and Category:Brazil, but the Cities in and Municipalities in parts are good. How would we do something like Chalan Beel? It'd be slightly odd at first thought to have a template that categorizes "Marshlands in Rajshahi District". It might be easier to have one template for cities and towns, and another for geographic features or something? But I can also see how one might be curious to find mountains or rivers in specific areas... I dunno, I'm rambling at this point :D — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 13:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If {{place}} can create refined and standardardized definition lines and category links, the work of the future catboiler will likely be much easier.

As for the categories Marshlands in Pakistan, Mountains in Russia, Rivers in Egypt, etc., I think they should exist. Leaving city names categorized but hundreds of river names uncategorized seems a bad idea. (Alternatively, rivers, mountains, marshlands could be categorized by country but not by smaller regions.)

My answer to your "one template for cities and towns, and another for geographic features or something?" would be no, because these two hypothetical templates have very similar functions, therefore they would probably resemble each other and be a little easier for users to remember if such functions existed in only one template. (And, technically, it is not difficult to alter details, such as categorization, for individual types of places: {{place}} already knows that the plural of town is towns and the plural of city is cities.)

I've removed from {{place}} the categories whose name don't contain "in" as you asked. --Daniel. 17:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

In the entry linierna, I use {{obsolete spelling of|linjerna|lang=sv}} and the result is a link to linjerna#English instead of the expected linjerna#Swedish. I guess this is related to how the lang parameter is passed from {{deftempboiler}} to {{makelink}}. Should makelink use parameter 1 rather than lang, or should deftempboiler pass the language value as lang= in addition to parameter 1? --LA2 14:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Your code {{obsolete spelling of|linjerna|lang=sv}} indeed was pointing to the English section of linjerna; it is pointing to the intuitively correct Swedish section now.

Specifically, I have fixed the link, not by editing the entry, but by making the correct value be passed from one template to another: Template:makelink is now using the parameter 1 to recognize the parameter lang from Template:obsolete spelling of. --Daniel. 23:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, in future, could you please start discussions before changing very widely used templates in very drastic ways? For example, the {{deftempboiler}} stuff broke various templates' support for things like lang=French. —RuakhTALK 22:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Ruakh. I've changed {{makelink}} to display the results without the automatic "(example)" in discussion pages as you asked. The "lang" parameter whose value is any language name like lang=French is also functional now; specifically, I had to edit Template:wlink2 to accomplish this. The community seems to feel it is increasingly necessary to have the chance to discuss my major edits — especially since I engaged in handling template functions which are complex, thus prone to errors. This phenomenon is in conflict with my previous reasoning related to {{deftempboiler}}: that this template would not change anything per se, because it is only supposed to standardize various similar templates, namely by them having the same code and the same functions (e.g., if I remember correctly, {{obsolete spelling of}} hadn't any sc parameter until recently, which is a shame). With that in mind, I've already decided to become more inclined to directly report my actions. As a result, I have been directing my attention to GP, documentation and other pages more often, as you certainly saw and occasionally replied. --Daniel. 02:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This needs to be able to accept language names instead of language codes. This has lead to thousands of entries being uncategorized. NB I'm not saying it's your fault, just that you are best placed to fix it. I haven't even looked at its history. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this preference for language codes over names is a result of this recent GP discussion. Apparently other users would prefer to fix (by bot) these thousands of uncategorized entries instead of changing back the related templates. --Daniel. 16:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

With regret. You have to be a bit more responsible and take on board others' comments. If you're not interest in improving Wiktionary, please do not edit it. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Changing "words" to "terms" in {{attention}} broke {{rfc-header}}? I can’t comprehend the logic behind it. Be that as it may, can we change it back so that {{rfc-header}} works again? —Stephen(Talk) 03:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Your contract of etyl:prv broke all the links. You have to check them before you shorten them. For example, Ruakh's example edit worked because w:North Germanic redirects to w:North Germanic languages. This was not the case at Provencal as the shortened version is a disambiguation page. Spot checking your other edits shows similar problems. Can you check and fix your previous edits?

More generally, I must ask you check your edits. While I don't believe this reoccurring issue is worthy of de-sysopping, it is harmful both in terms of wiktionary as a website and in terms of other editors time. --Bequw→τ 02:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble. I've re-checked the templates and edited them where necessary, by using the older system with #switch. --Daniel. 03:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Good use of the wiki redirects! --Bequw→τ 18:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This can probably be cited outside Star Trek. Shouldn't this go through RFV before being moved to the appendix namespace? --Yair rand (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

If it can be cited without context of Star Trek, then it can indeed be defined at beam up. In this case, the additional page Appendix:Star Trek/beam up probably should still exist, because (1) the term was firstly used in this context and (2) perhaps there are additional information unique to the series, such as possibly "To teleport by using a transporter." --Daniel. 04:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Klingon is from a fictional universe, but since it has an ISO 639-3 code, I'd suggest that this is in wide enough use to be considered cited outside of the fictional universe. Therefore I'll move it back, but the appendix entry would also be valid, just not really necessary. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that there are ISO 639-3 codes for fictional races... I was genuinely believing it was only for languages. --Daniel. 11:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Then see how Klingon and Appendix:Star Trek/Klingon are neatly organized. I don't think that attesting one word is enough to bring all the fictional homonymous words together in the entry namespace, namely the language and the race. --Daniel. 12:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to revert your reversion, effectively transforming klingono into an appendix-only entry again. If you want to create an attestable definition of klingono as a language, in the main namespace, go ahead. If you want to define klingono, in the main namespace, but describing it as a race only existing in context of Star Trek, please don't. Thank you. (: --Daniel. 16:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I request that you stop creating one-page-per-term appendices for terms from fictional universes until you demonstrate that this is widely supported by Wiktionary editors. --Dan Polansky 08:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't intend to cease this particular work. These are some relevant pages:

You ought to stop. The vote does not explicitly enable that there should be one-term-per-page appendices. ELE does not regulate appendixes but main namespace, as you have guessed. You know that what you are doing has raised disagreement, and that other people interpret the vote quite differently. So there is no consensus for this one-term-per-page practice. Either demonstrate consensus (neither ELE nor the vote demonstrate the consensus), or stop.--Dan Polansky 13:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I have already participated in discussions, most notably WT:BP#English appendix-only nouns where my reasons have been stated. What other format do you suggest for appendix-only entries? Or don't you support their existence at all, preferring that, for example, "image inducer" be never defined on Wiktionary? --Daniel. 13:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter that you have stated reasons that you have find convincing. What does matter is that people disagree with what you are doing. Understood? Your reasons matter when you are deciding alone, but this is a wiki, a colloborative project in which you are not acting and deciding alone. If your reasons do not convince other people, then they do not matter. The page Appendix:Glossary of Farscape terms is an example how an appendix of terms from fictional universe should look like. --Dan Polansky 13:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) There should be no etymologies, pronunciations and translations of terms originating in fictional universes. Or else those terms might equally well be placed in the main namespace. --Dan Polansky 14:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Why should we neglect the connection between アーボック and Arbok? --Daniel. 14:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

(<-) Because we do not want to document Pokémon in the first place. If we wanted to, we would have included Pokémon in the main namespace. After you convince other editors that Pokémon should be documented in as much detail as mainspace entries, with pronunciations, translations, etymologies, whatnot, then you can start creating such appendixes. --Dan Polansky 14:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe you should gather consensus yourself on how to limit the coverage of fictional words. --Daniel. 14:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

(<-) I see. You, one who has introduced in stealth mode a new practice, do not feel obliged to do the political work for what you propose, even after your proposal has raised fierce opposition in Beer parlour. You seem to think that clear opposition in Beer parlour is not enough. I do not share this view of wiki collaboration. At some point, I will possibly need to start a vote on forbidding what you are doing. The vote may end up in no consensus, say 60% against your proposal. Then you will continue with 40% support. Well I think that what you are doing is wrong, and that it is you who should start a vote and lose the vote unless you garner consensus, if you plan to continue your practice. --Dan Polansky 14:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I have created and participated in relevant discussions, including this one. Except for you and other editor, there's virtually no "clear opposition in Beer parlour" regarding the concept of formatting fictional words as other entries. You apparently are trying to push your opinion on how to format them, while sliding the burden of proof onto my shoulders. It's not really difficult to create a new BP discussion if you think there's something wrong and unspoken, or participate in the current discussions, like you are doing now. So, be my guest and share your disagreements, if you would, and feel free to participate in discussions and votes as you see fit, which I think is the better way to garner and acknowledge consensus. --Daniel. 14:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

What is the point of adding the deprecated quotations header? And of duplicating the cites in citation namespace?

I have moved the Ogden cite to the two places where its uses of "be" are in the entry and intend to do so for all of the citations not now in the entry. As we have no good way of maintaining coordination across namespaces and do have the ability to optionally conceal or display inline citations, there is little value that I can see in having citations duplicated. If there is no value, then why should the citation space material not be deleted once it is moved inline? DCDuringTALK 10:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please point me to the decision of deprecating the "Quotations" header? I believe I missed it.

I have been duplicating citations between two namespaces, mainly for two reasons: I saw this practice ongoing in many pages and WT:Citations says If the citations page exists, it should hold all quotations and references for the term, including any inflected forms. Any quotations used within the entries would be a duplication of these. --Daniel. 10:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course, that is not policy. Furthermore, that text predates User:Atelaes' creation of the default javascript that allows quotations to appear inline, in principal namespace, displayed or hidden at the user's option. One major motivation for the creation of citation space was to allow as many definitions as possible to appear simultaneously on users' screens. One of the cleanup tasks at Wiktionary:Todo is the removal of quotations headers, where possible. (See Wiktionary:Todo/superfluous quotation headers.)

If we are to mass-populate citation space that would probably best be done by bot with a vote. Don't hesitate to bring the matter up at BP if my interpretation seems in any way suspect or unsatisfying to you.

As you must see by now, as great many matters are not very explicitly or definitively resolved. No one likes to do the work to make a proposal, pre-sell it before a vote, and engage in the sometimes angry-sounding discussions that follow. And then, even if the vote passes, the decisions are often not really implemented. Making our entries more consistent (often through templatization) and improving the quality of English definitions are each in themselves a life's work for a few full-time-equivalent contributors. DCDuringTALK 12:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Quotations header is deprecated in the main namespace only. Also, entries like be are pretty massive, offloading some kilobytes to the citation pages does it some good. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That is the only namespace I was talking about. The primary purpose of quotations is to illustrate senses. Once in citations space the quotations lose connection with the senses they supposedly illustrate. DanielDot is mostly duplicating the quotations so entry size is not being (and should not be) reduced. DCDuringTALK 12:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

From the 2010-06-29 dump. It's a list Quotation headers directly under a single definition. The quotes should be able to be put under the definition (prepending a '#' before each line) and the header removed. If there's a lot, some should be put in the Citation page (and put a For usage examples of this term, see Citations:Daniel Carrero/Archive 2. at the bottom of the PoS section, before subsections).

I believe the task required at that page would be, for example, removing the "Quotations" header from the current version of the entry videographer, where the quote would look better if closer to the definition.

Apparently, DCDuring wants shorter citation pages (or, maybe, the complete removal of the "Citations:" namespace?), by moving the citations to entries. On the other hand, that specific TODO page, Martin, and I recommend the existence of citation pages for entries that would otherwise contain too many citations.

Anyway, removing citations from the "citations" namespace seems to me an obscure idea that probably concerns everyone; so I followed DCDuring's suggestion of creating a BP discussion on that matter. --Daniel. 13:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. This particular error was very avoidable, despite it stemming from an attempt to circumvent an incredibly obscure and error-prone aspect of MediaWiki; I should have known better. Once more, I see that I've broken an entry; as a result, it has been fixed immediately. Thank you for pointing me to fains and sorry for the trouble of making you see temporary bugs regularly. I'll use this memory as one reason to keep improving my abilities and how to use them. --Daniel. 00:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hah. Thanks, Opiaterein. I appreciate when you bite people who have bitten me. For what is worth, there has been a recent error where "I probably could not have predicted that {{#ifeq:[[:Special:Whatlinkshere/smoker's cough]]|{{raw:Special:Whatlinkshere/smoker's cough}}|TRUE|FALSE}} returns TRUE but {{#ifeq:[[:Special:Whatlinkshere/{{PAGENAME}}]]|{{raw:Special:Whatlinkshere/{{PAGENAME}}}}|TRUE|FALSE}} returns FALSE at smoker's cough, because these results apparently make no sense.", as quoted from me at GP. I do test my new templates and functions, but it is very unlikely that I would fathom the need to test that. It is related to the fains above; both entries are properly functioning now. --Daniel. 00:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that I got so crabby. If there is a problem, I suppose it is that {{en-noun}} is complex and widely transcluded. At its level of complexity and utilization, we should probably just be happy that it works. Trying to squeeze more functionality into it - or indeed make any change whatsoever - may not be worth it. DCDuringTALK 03:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Please don't use citation glosses on the Citations pages. It breaks section editing. We've long agreed as a community never to put section headers into templates like the French Wiktionary does. --EncycloPetey 01:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I am aware of the problem of breaking section editing, and personally consider it as a good reason to not place {{citation gloss}} into Citations pages anymore. However, this particular community agreement is in conflict with the template {{citation}}, which does place section headers, break section editing and apparently everyone uses it. I would like to figure out a way to use {{citation gloss}} without breaking that function. --Daniel. 01:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to read the "adjective" citation as attributive use of the noun, rather than as a true adjective. --EncycloPetey 22:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to read that citation as an adjective: "the Old Portuguese period" does not seem grammatically different from "the Galician sound" (from Citations:Galician). --Daniel. 11:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

In structure, no, but constructions dealing with time are, in my experience, inherently ambiguous. Add on that every language name in English has an adjectival ending, and you have a mess in trying to sort out the part of speech. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you here, but stating my personal inclination in how I see that quote. --EncycloPetey 14:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I have then expanded Citations:Old Portuguese with additional quotes that I believe to be unambiguous adjectives, for better coverage. Perhaps it would be good to add a note at Appendix:English nouns explaining the confusion of parts of speech that possibly arises from names of languages. This hypothetical note could also exist at the "Usage notes" of every English entry of a language; however, it is effectively a regular grammatical rule, so that note would be repetitive like "this noun, when pluralized, stands for a quantity of more than one", and redundant to an appendix that treats English nouns as a whole. Maybe that appendix should be [improved and] linked from every English noun, for better findability of that valuable resource. --Daniel. 00:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You should not have created {{en-pnoun}}, or at least you should not have used it directly in the main namespace. There is the long used template {{en-proper noun}}, which is not only commonly used by current practice but also well named. --Dan Polansky 13:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, every sentence said by you and starting with "you should" is not a worthy advice, unless out of bad faith I forgot some good influence from your apparently absolute truths; sorry if I did. The template that you dislike is simply a harmless redirect. Please learn to ignore it, while you type your additional "commonly used" six characters. --Daniel. 13:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stop messing with {{ws header}}. I disagree with the parameter "link". I am a major Wikisaurus contributor; you are a Wikisaurus non-contributor. Find another playground where you can mess with templates without doing any real work. --Dan Polansky 07:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Among all your arguments against my actions and thoughts, "I am a major Wikisaurus contributor; you are a Wikisaurus non-contributor." is perhaps the most ironic: you are asking me to stop contributing to Wikisaurus by calling me a "non-contributor". I have counterargued all your previous reasons for deleting the parameter "link=". I am going to readd it and protect the template from this edit war. For what is worth, note that I didn't remove your suggestion "hyperlink=", but I also kept the shorter, unambiguous and user-friendly version of it. --Daniel. 09:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not asking you to avoid contributing; I am asking you to stop messing with templates. You have plenty of opportunity to contribute to Wikisaurus without messing with templates.

Now that you have protected the template {{ws header}}, I cannot edit the template. By protecting the template, you are abusing your administrator power, in gaining an upper hand in a conflict. I ask you to unprotect the template and revert your last changes. --Dan Polansky 09:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Refining functions of templates is one of my multiple ways to contribute to Wikisaurus, especially after this discussion. Since you are unsatisfied with "link=", I suggest to continue discussing, or even creating a vote, rather than forcing your individual decision simply by deleting the alternative. --Daniel. 09:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I ask you again to unprotect {{ws header}}. You should not use your admin power to gain an upper hand over a long-term Wikisaurus contributor. --Dan Polansky 08:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You are not my superior, so it is not your business to protect a template on which you and I are having a conflict. It is not your business to use your admin power even if you are right and I am wrong. The community has given you admin tools only for some purposes. These purposes do not include gaining an upper hand over a long-term Wikisarus contributor. I ask you third time to unprotect the template. --Dan Polansky 09:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the protection level to semi-protection, as I'm pretty sure full protection was not an appropriate use of the tool. DP, please don't remove the parameter until it has been discussed by the community. --Yair rand (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I ask you to stop moving things to appendices of fictional universes right now, until the vote shows community support for your activity.

Today, you have moved Trekkie to Appendix:Star Trek/Trekkie. --Dan Polansky 08:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The vote that you have linked is supposed to decide the layout of certain pages, not their inclusion into the appendix namespace. That is, either "Trekkie" is defined in its own page, or it becomes part of a list of multiple terms (presumably all the terms from Star Trek). --Daniel. 08:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

So, do you expect that I suddenly develop a layout to place all the information from Appendix:Star Trek/Trekkie into a list, before the vote is finished? In this case, I'm not interested. The current format of subpages is consistent and relatively easy to convert into a list if necessary. --Daniel. 09:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The other thing is, the entry Trekkie has not failed RFV, so it was not your business to move it anywhere. Given that "Trekkie" means "A fan of the TV science fiction series Star Trek", it probably belongs to the namespace. Trekkie is an entity of this world, not of a fictional universe. Kindly move the entry back to the main namespace. --Dan Polansky 08:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I see I will need to explain things that seem quite straightforward to me, so I can only wonder whether I can succeed. A Trekkie is a human person, with flesh and bones, living in some place on the planet Earth, having real spacial coordinates, one whom I could possibly meet. He has an official name and possibly pays taxes. In a word, a Trekkie is a real person, not a fictional person. By contrast, an orc is a fictional being that does not live in the real world. And Aragorn is a fictional person, one who has never really lived, unlike a Trekkie. --Dan Polansky 09:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate to know what are your thoughts on this matter, especially when they differ from mine, so we may possibly attain a consensus. I have a question that is very relevant to this issue: Do you prefer "orc" to be defined in appendices or in the main namespace? --Daniel. 09:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

orc should be in the main namespace - it is used in books by several different authors, not just Tolkein. I have never heard of slide delay. SemperBlotto 09:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I assume that "orc" meets CFI for entities of fictional universes, so it belongs to main namespace. I was merely trying to point out that "Trekkie" is a real person, while "orc" is a fictional entity. "Trekkie" is not regulated by CFI for entities of fictional universes, because "Trekkie" is not such an entity. Your question about orc and you last remarks show that you do not know what you are doing. You should better stay away from fictional universes, or ask your professors at the university that you are studying to explain these things to you. --Dan Polansky 10:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I assume my professors would not have anything to do with your opinion, unless you were one of them. Your sudden conclusion that I don't know what I'm doing is false. --Daniel. 10:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

My explanation about "Trekkie" is not an opinion; it is a true explanation. I have seen before that you are overconfident about what you are doing, so I will repeat, without any hope that you will take this to heart, that you do not know what you are doing. I do not expect myself to have to explain to people that a Trekkie is a real person rather than a fictional entity. Please, consider checking what you are doing and saying with at least one person that is not yourself, such as your profs or your schoolmates. --Dan Polansky 10:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Your "consider checking what you are doing and saying with at least one person that is not yourself" is another ironic statement: I am already dealing with a person who opposes me, and that's you. Now, my question about orc started with "do you prefer...", so I was clearly asking for your opinion. I know that "Trekkie" is a nonfictional concept, but its existence as a word strictly related to fiction is very relevant to the treatment of fictional words here. For example, I am able to fill Wiktionary with more than three hundred English nonfictional terms related to Pokémon; many of them would be very obscure to people who are not fans of that franchise. However, after tracing opinions from multiple editors, I feel that these words would not be readily accepted by everyone. For example, one word whose "fictionalness" is ambiguous is Appendix:Pokémon/MissingNo. (either it is a nonfictional "glitch" or a fictional "Pokémon species"). So I'm creating discussions regularly and shaping practices slowly. --Daniel. 10:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I will put it differently: consider checking with someone whom you deem wiser than yourself. I am not such a person, so I don't count. Maybe you can find such a person at the university that you are studying. --Dan Polansky 11:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sure. Most of my friends already know that I edit Wiktionary, so it is simple to comment about particular situations from here. Basically, I was advised to bee more patient and take more care for the opinions of other people. Although, I'm not sure if I could convey the facts impartially; it's always possible that while I describe my actions, I punctuate them by their purposes in comparison with the dictionary as a whole. --Daniel. 08:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion you have started is not about "Trekkie", so I do not get what you have intended with that discussion. The discussion does not seem to be a continuation of this discussion we are having right now. --Dan Polansky 09:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It is about "Nonfictional words for specific works" as a whole. In my mind, "Trekkie" and "slide delay" would deserve the same treatment for the purposes of inclusion and layout. If you think the BP discussion is too far from this discussion, you may ignore the BP one. --Daniel. 09:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No. I decided to create "Invisible Shiny Bulbasaur" as an example of nonfictional term to be moved to the main namespace. It is relevant for one or more discussions about the supposed distinction between fiction and nonfiction. --Daniel. 20:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If you wanted to discuss "Invisible Shiny Bulbasaur", all you had to do is to state the term "Invisible Shiny Bulbasaur" and its definition in a BP discussion. There was no need to create an entry. I ask you again to stop. --Dan Polansky 08:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. In my experience, there were various instances where people have had to implement a new practice in a small place to gather feedback and a possible consensus. Another safe alternative would be defining the discussed term at User:Daniel./Invisible Shiny Bulbasaur, but placing it on a dedicated appendix seems equally harmless. --Daniel. 08:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I will rephrase. The need to discuss the term is not a justification sufficient for creating an entry as a subpage at the time at which a running vote makes it plentifully clear such subpages are unwanted. Okay? The community says the subpages are unwanted, so stop seeking excuses for creating such subpages. The need to discuss a term in Beer parlour is a poor excuse, as I have explained: you could have plainly stated the term and its definition in the discussion. --Dan Polansky 09:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

As I have said, Invisible Shiny Bulbasaur is to be kept at the main namespace, per our discussion about the difference between fiction and nonfiction. --Daniel. 10:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

So now since you can't create individual Appendix pages, you resort to the main namespace? Please stop doing this, it just disrupts everything. A block might be in order if you continue. -- Prince Kassad 00:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

How my contributions disrupt anything? A moment before you sent this message, I've linked some entries to BP to be discussed by other editors. --Daniel. 00:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

On English Wikipedia, we have the policy w:WP:POINT, which says: "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, enforcing it consistently. This may even entail an attempt to turn consensus against a policy by satirically applying it on various pages to show that it is ridiculous. Such tactics are highly disruptive and can lead to a block (possibly indefinite) or ban." Now I know that Wikipedia policies do not apply to Wiktionary, but I still think it was wrong to create these entries just to demonstrate something in a BP discussion. -- Prince Kassad 00:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"Relevant to a current discussion" which you started. Not much of an argument for keeping the blatantly unattestable. Equinox◑ 00:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose "create five or so relevant entries as examples to be discussed" is far from "enforce [a policy] consistently to show that it is ridiculous".

As for Equinox' comment, the terms that I added recently are attestable and I'm ready to prove it by citations. Also, technical words related to Pokémon TCG (a real game) does not seem much different from chess moves, or even Tetris, for the purpose of inclusion. --Daniel. 00:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I wish you'd added the citations at the time when you created the entries, since you evidently know they are controversial. Equinox◑ 01:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that adding the citations when I created the entries would be good. However, attestation is not the only controversy of these entries and not my only concern; by creating them early, we had the chance to discuss them early. As I said, there are only approximately five new entries; in addition, I have chosen to create new entries rather than edit existing entries (for example, I have not defined "evolution" in context of Pokémon), to make any cleanup easier. Also, I can blame my slow internet for not having the chance to scrutinize multiple resources on sight. I took the whole night to cite some of the discussed entries. In the meantime (while pages were loading), I was engaged in other tasks, such as multiple new functions for templates (most asked by other editors) and various things not related to Wiktionary. I maintain that all the entries that I created are not "blatantly unattestable", and they valuable to the implementation, improvement and discussion of our policies related to our distinction between fiction and nonfiction. --Daniel. 19:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You have deleted Wikisaurus:ephemeral/def and Wikisaurus:enrage/def. Have you made any proposal to do that anywhere? Have you got agreement from other people? In fact, I would like to get the /def subpages deleted, but only after I get some support from other people. --Dan Polansky 08:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I haven't discussed their deletion before your message. They were simply orphaned and apparently redundant pages. I may restore them immediately if you want. --Daniel. 08:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Please restore them until there is a support for their deletion. Then, the whole batch of /def subpages may get deleted. --Dan Polansky 08:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Well, the basic technical explanation is that when you type {{namecatboiler|gl}}, you are implying "ROOT" as the second unnamed parameter, which would result in {{namecatboiler|gl|ROOT}} and sort under "R". I have changed other pieces of code to make Category:Galician language sort under "N", as it should. --Daniel. 05:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Daniel. I believe this requires a figurative definition. Of or Pertaining to the cartoon character does not explain its meaning in the citations you provided (as people like me don't watch the Simpsons and are thus unfamiliar with the character's nature.). Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 23:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. I have clarified the definition, by extending it. --Daniel. 13:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't a chance to speak at WT:Beer parlour archive/2010/October#What to do with these 9 constructed languages.3F so I thought I'd share my views on the matter here. Lexicography, while properly an independent discipline, has long been regarded as a sub-discipline of linguistics. Many people see a dictionary not just as a tool to help people understand words they want to use, but also as a base of knowledge to be used in linguistics research. For this latter reason, facts about natural languages, however rare or extinct, are much more useful than facts about newly constructed languages. While Lingua Franca Nova might be an interesting experiment in displaying the commonality of Romance languages, most academics would not be considered it "useful research". It's not going to give us any insights into the spread of people or ideas through history (the real research in that area is in understanding historical forms such as Vulgar Latin). This is why I believe all natural languages are default allowed. Constructed languages, then have to pass the test of "helping people understand words they want to use". While a bit arbitrary it appears we set this bar based on popularity (of speakers and media), but with an aversion to fiction-derived ones. This is probably because most non-fiction-originating languages were meant as auxiliary languages, and the hope of a world language seemed like something good to promote. I see no future in aux langs so I wouldn't differentiate the fiction-originating ones from the others (if Esperanto's in, then Klingon should be to). But many people would be happy to ditch all the con langs as there is no apparent linguistic use to them (and other sources probably treat them better than we do). --Bequw→τ 03:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your views. I see your discernment between linguistics and lexicography as a compelling reason to drive the opinions of all or many Wiktionary editors. However, this is not necessarily the only goal of our project. Wiktionary has characteristics of medical dictionaries, technical dictionaries, bilingual dictionaries of many languages, dictionaries of slang, etc., in addition to having rare or unprecedented services such as descriptions for each inflected word and complete tables of inflection for each inflectable lemma. Past decisions proved that common characteristics of other dictionaries do not necessarily need to be imitated here. In particular, the development of a dictionary for a constructed language would not be a novel concept. There are other dictionaries for them.

I, personally, see merit in honoring the "linguistic value" when developing and enforcing criteria for inclusion, and I am sure that others would share this basic opinion. However, I don't think that removing all the constructed languages or moving them to appendices is the best long-term approach. Conversely, it is worth mentioning that I also don't prefer adding every word of any language that someone invented.

One particular suggestion that I like would be deprecating entirely the discrimination of groups of constructed languages. That is, both Esperanto and Klingon might be in the main namespace. They often clearly meet other criteria for inclusion, such as the existence of books (Shakespeare, for example) in Klingon and Esperanto that may serve for citations and the simple existence of words that convey meaning (and their characters and set phrases).

After all, the English word Qapla' is described as derived from a Klingon word, which is itself a little proof of linguistic value for English that would be better described if Appendix:Klingon/Qapla' and Qapla' were merged into one individual page. On the other hand, Eloi is a very obscure artistic language, so it is possible that Appendix:Eloi (and its redlinks that are currently expected to grow into subpages) get deleted because of lack of citations. --Daniel. 06:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Without trying to cast any blame, I would like your input at WT:BP#Citations of terms from fictional universes and your forgiveness for not asking you more discretely that question directly. Although I feel very strongly about this, I think it's more important that we agree on a solution. DAVilla 00:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure; no problem. Thank you for creating that relevant discussion. --Daniel. 00:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Opio, I guess it contains English terms that totally ignore CFI in exchange for providing an entry to hold translation tables that may be useful in other languages, where "useful" means "not obvious". I don't know why "target" is in the title. And I don't know why Category:English phrasebook is a member of the category.

Yeah, "English non-idiomatic translation targets" is much more "Wiktionary jargon" than English sums of parts. --Daniel. 11:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)